Re: [OMPI devel] 1.3.1 blocker
We just tested it and it worked for us. Looks good. Thanks ! Rolf Brian Barrett wrote: I believe the problem is fixed with r20776 (and r20777), at least for the test case Jeff had in the bug tracker. Can someone else give it a whirl and see if I'm just getting lucky? Thanks, Brian On Mar 13, 2009, at 7:51 AM, Ralph Castain wrote: Just as an FYI: While I have some data on this issue, I will likely not have time to address it in the next week or so due to institutional priorities. So if someone who cares about rsh/ssh launching (I'm afraid we don't) would like to take a look at it, they are welcome to do so. :-) Ralph On Mar 12, 2009, at 9:30 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: To let everyone else know... We unfortunately ran into a blocker bug today, literally right before 1.3.1 went out the door. Doh! https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/1832 -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems ___ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel ___ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
Re: [OMPI devel] 1.3.1 blocker
I believe the problem is fixed with r20776 (and r20777), at least for the test case Jeff had in the bug tracker. Can someone else give it a whirl and see if I'm just getting lucky? Thanks, Brian On Mar 13, 2009, at 7:51 AM, Ralph Castain wrote: Just as an FYI: While I have some data on this issue, I will likely not have time to address it in the next week or so due to institutional priorities. So if someone who cares about rsh/ssh launching (I'm afraid we don't) would like to take a look at it, they are welcome to do so. :-) Ralph On Mar 12, 2009, at 9:30 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: To let everyone else know... We unfortunately ran into a blocker bug today, literally right before 1.3.1 went out the door. Doh! https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/1832 -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems ___ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel ___ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel -- Brian Barrett Open MPI developer http://www.open-mpi.org/
[OMPI devel] some comments on attribute catching, create/free() keyvals and all that.
I've posted this to MPICH2-Dev, and then decided to re-post this here, at the behavior of Open MPI is exactly the same. You may also want to try the code right below, and next the one at the end of the forwarder message. #include #include int main( int argc, char ** argv ) { int Key1, tmp1, Key2, tmp2; MPI_Init(&argc, &argv); MPI_Keyval_create(MPI_NULL_COPY_FN, MPI_NULL_DELETE_FN, &Key1,(void *) 0); tmp1=Key1; MPI_Keyval_free(&tmp1); MPI_Keyval_create(MPI_NULL_COPY_FN, MPI_NULL_DELETE_FN, &Key2, (void *) 0); tmp2=Key2; MPI_Keyval_free(&tmp2); MPI_Finalize(); printf("MPI_KEYVAL_INVALID: %d\n", MPI_KEYVAL_INVALID); printf("Key1: %d\n", Key1); printf("tmp1: %d\n", tmp1); printf("Key2: %d\n", Key2); printf("tmp2: %d\n", tmp2); return 0; } -- Forwarded message -- From: Lisandro Dalcin List-Post: devel@lists.open-mpi.org Date: Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 4:01 PM Subject: some comments on attribute catching, create/free() keyvals and all that. To: mpich2-...@mcs.anl.gov As I've shown in a previous emal, MPICH2 likely implement create()/free() for keyvals using a counter that is incr/decr ... Now, give a try to the code pasted below. This shows that (at least in MPICH2), MPI_Keyval_free() have to be used with great care as it is IMHO dangerous, and basically these calls should be all done near MPI_Finalize() time... or bad things could happen... The only reference I can found in the MPI standard is at (http://www.mpi-forum.org/docs/mpi21-report-bw/node147.htm#Node147) where MPI_Comm_free_keyval() is explained... However, I believe that description is talking about different things... Should MPICH2 stop decrefing the keyval counter? You know, about 2<<31 values should be enough, right ;-) ? But then.. What the pourpose of having MPI_Keyval_free()? Just to invalidate de passed value by setting it to KEYVAL_INVALID? #include #include int free_KeyVal(MPI_Comm c, int k, void *v,void *ctx) { printf("free_KeyVal()\n"); return MPI_SUCCESS; } int main( int argc, char ** argv ) { int Key1, Key2, Val1=1, Val2=2, ValOut; MPI_Init(&argc, &argv); MPI_Keyval_create(MPI_NULL_COPY_FN, free_KeyVal, &Key1,(void *) 0); MPI_Attr_put(MPI_COMM_SELF, Key1, &Val1); MPI_Keyval_free(&Key1); MPI_Keyval_create(MPI_NULL_COPY_FN, MPI_NULL_DELETE_FN, &Key2,(void *) 0); MPI_Attr_put(MPI_COMM_SELF, Key2, &Val2); MPI_Keyval_free(&Key2); MPI_Finalize(); return 0; } -- Lisandro Dalcín --- Centro Internacional de Métodos Computacionales en Ingeniería (CIMEC) Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (INTEC) Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) PTLC - Güemes 3450, (3000) Santa Fe, Argentina Tel/Fax: +54-(0)342-451.1594 -- Lisandro Dalcín --- Centro Internacional de Métodos Computacionales en Ingeniería (CIMEC) Instituto de Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Industria Química (INTEC) Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) PTLC - Güemes 3450, (3000) Santa Fe, Argentina Tel/Fax: +54-(0)342-451.1594
Re: [OMPI devel] 1.3.1 blocker
Just as an FYI: While I have some data on this issue, I will likely not have time to address it in the next week or so due to institutional priorities. So if someone who cares about rsh/ssh launching (I'm afraid we don't) would like to take a look at it, they are welcome to do so. :-) Ralph On Mar 12, 2009, at 9:30 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: To let everyone else know... We unfortunately ran into a blocker bug today, literally right before 1.3.1 went out the door. Doh! https://svn.open-mpi.org/trac/ompi/ticket/1832 -- Jeff Squyres Cisco Systems ___ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
Re: [OMPI devel] Meta Question -- Open MPI: Is it a dessert toppingor is it a floor wax?
I would like to add my 0.02 to this discussion. The "code stability" it is not something that should stop project from development and progress. During MPI Project live we already saw some pretty critical changes (pml/btl/etc...) and as result after all we have more stable and more optimized MPI. OMPI already have defined workflow that allow to us handle big code changes without loosing code stability for a long period of time. As I understand the btl movement will make the code more modular and will open window for new features and optimizations. So if the BTL movement will not effect negatively on MPI performance and code stability (for a long period of time, temporary unstability may be reasonable) I do not see any constructive reason to block this modification. If I understand correct the code will go to the feature_oriented branch and we will have enough time to run QA cycles before it will be moved to super_stable mode. And after all I hope that we will get more stable,modular and feature rich MPI implementation. Thanks, Pasha Brian W. Barrett wrote: I'm going to stay out of the debate about whether Andy correctly characterized the two points you brought up as a distributed OS or not. Sandia's position on these two points remains the same as I previously stated when the question was distributed OS or not. The primary goal of the Open MPI project was and should remain to be the best MPI project available. Low-cost items to support different run-times or different non-MPI communication contexts are worth the work. But high-cost items should be avoided, as they degrade our ability to provide the best MPI project available (of course, others, including OMPI developers, can take the source and do what they wish outside the primary development tree). High performance is a concern, but so is code maintainability. If it takes twices as long to implement feature A because I have to worry about it's impact not only on MPI, but also on projects X, Y, Z, as an MPI developer, I've lost something important. Brian On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, Richard Graham wrote: I am assuming that by distributed OS you are referring to the changes that we (not just ORNL) are trying to do. If this is the case, this is a mischaracterization of the of out intentions. We have two goals - To be able to use a different run-time than ORTE to drive Open MPI - To use the communication primitives outside the context of MPI (with or without ORTE) High performance is critical, and at NO time have we ever said anything about sacrificing performance - these have been concerns that others (rightfully) have expressed. Rich On 3/12/09 8:24 AM, "Jeff Squyres" wrote: I think I have to agree with Terry. I love to inspire and see new, original, and unintended uses for Open MPI. But our primary focus must remain to create, maintain, and continue to deliver a high performance MPI implementation. We have a long history of adding "small" things to Open MPI that are useful to 3rd parties because it helps them, helps further Open MPI adoption/usefulness, and wasn't difficult for us to do ("small" can have varying definitions). I'm in favor of such things, as long as we maintain a policy of "in cases of conflict, OMPI/high performance MPI wins". On Mar 12, 2009, at 9:01 AM, Terry Dontje wrote: Sun's participation in this community was to obtain a stable and performant MPI implementation that had some research work done on the side to improve those goals and the introduction of new features. We don't have problems with others using and improving on the OMPI code base but we need to make sure such usage doesn't detract from our primary goal of performant MPI implementation. However, changes to the OMPI code base to allow it to morph or even support a distributed OS does cause for some concern. That is are we opening the door to having more interfaces to support? If so is this wise in the fact that it seems to me we have a hard enough time trying to focus on the MPI items? Not to mention this definitely starts detracting from the original goals. --td Andrew Lumsdaine wrote: Hi all -- There is a meta question that I think is underlying some of the discussion about what to do with BTLs etc. Namely, is Open MPI an MPI implementation with a portable run time system -- or is it a distributed OS with an MPI interface? It seems like some of the changes being asked for (e.g., with the BTLs) reflect the latter -- but perhaps not everyone shares that view and hence the impedance mismatch. I doubt this is the last time that tensions will come up because of differing views on this question. I suggest that we come to some kind of common understanding of the question (and answer) and structure development and administration accordingly. Best Regards, Andrew Lumsdaine ___ devel mailing list de...@open-mpi.org http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel __